Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- - the power under section 482, criminal procedure code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

maheswaran, j. 1. in these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, balaji chit funds. 2. the petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120b, 193, 420, 468 and 471, indian penal code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the income-tax act. the summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. but, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. the respondents filed petitions in crl. mps. nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Maheswaran, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Maheswaran, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Maheswaran, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Maheswaran, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Maheswaran, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Maheswaran, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Maheswaran, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '776487',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
			'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Maheswaran, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '776487',
		(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Income Tax Officer Vs Balaji Chit Funds and ors - Citation 776487 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '776487',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 482; <a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 276 and 277',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986',
		'appellant' => 'income-tax Officer',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'B. Santhakumar, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-01-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Maheswaran, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Maheswaran, J. </p><p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. </p><p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. </p><p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. </p><p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint </p><p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]170ITR12(Mad)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Balaji Chit Funds and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '776487',
	(int) 1 => 'income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/776487/income-tax-officer-vs-balaji-chit-funds-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Maheswaran, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as 'Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused, managing partner'. Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact, it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint,the court will undoubtedly have power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is ordered. <p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Direct Taxation
Court	Chennai High Court
Decided On	Jan-13-1987
Case Number	Crl. Misc. Petition Nos. 12735 to 12739 of 1986
Judge	Maheswaran, J.
Reported in	[1988]170ITR12(Mad)
Acts	Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 276 and 277
Appellant	income-tax Officer
Respondent	Balaji Chit Funds and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Sam V. Chelliah, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	B. Santhakumar, Adv.

income-tax Officer Vs. Balaji Chit Funds and ors. - Court Judgment